Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28420339›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2017

Protocol for the development of a salutogenic intrapartum core outcome set (SIPCOS).

Valerie Smith, Deirdre Daly, Ingela Lundgren, Tine Eri, Cecily Begley, Mechthild M Gross, Soo Downe, Zarko Alfirevic, Declan Devane

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Unplanned visits and midwife-led antenatal care.European journal of midwifery · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Valerie SmithSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Aras Moyola, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. smithv1@tcd.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2249-6038
Deirdre DalySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, 24 D'Olier Street, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Ingela LundgrenInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, SE-405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Tine EriFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nursing and Health Promotion, Oslo and Akershus College, PO4 St. Olav Space, 0130, Oslo, Norway.
Cecily BegleySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, 24 D'Olier Street, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Mechthild M GrossMidwifery Research and Education Unit, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Niedersachsen, Germany.
Soo DowneSchool of Community Health and Midwifery, Brook Building BB223, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Zarko AlfirevicWomen's and Children's Health, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Crown St., Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK.
Declan DevaneSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Aras Moyola, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMaternity intrapartum care research and clinical care more often focus on outcomes that minimise or prevent adverse health rather than on what constitutes positive health and wellbeing (salutogenesis). This was highlighted recently in a systematic review of reviews of intrapartum reported outcomes where only 8% of 1648 individual outcomes, from 102 systematic reviews, were agreed as being salutogenically-focused. Added to this is variation in the outcomes measured in individual studies rendering it very difficult for researchers to synthesise, fully, the evidence from studies on a particular topic. One of the suggested ways to address this is to develop and apply an agreed standardised set of outcomes, known as a 'core outcome set' (COS). In this paper we present a protocol for the development of a salutogenic intrapartum COS (SIPCOS) for use in maternity care research and a SIPCOS for measuring in daily intrapartum clinical care.

methodsThe study proposes three phases in developing the final SIPCOSs. Phase one, which is complete, involved the conduct of a systematic review of reviews to identify a preliminary list of salutogenically-focused outcomes that had previously been reported in systematic reviews of intrapartum interventions. Sixteen unique salutogenically-focused outcome categories were identified. Phase two will involve prioritising these outcomes, from the perspective of key stakeholders (users of maternity services, clinicians and researchers) by asking them to rate the importance of each outcome for inclusion in the SIPCOSs. A final consensus meeting (phase three) will be held, bringing international stakeholders together to review the preliminary SIPCOSs resulting from the survey and to agree and finalise the final SIPCOSs for use in future maternity care research and daily clinical care. DISCUSSION: The expectation in developing the SIPCOSs is that they will be collected and reported in all future studies evaluating intrapartum interventions and measured/recorded in future intrapartum clinical care, as routine, alongside other outcomes also deemed important in the context of the study or clinical scenario. Using the SIPCOSs in this way, will promote and encourage standardised measurements of positive health outcomes in maternity care, into the future.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesOutcome Assessment, Health CareParturitionClinical ProtocolsFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeCore outcome setCOSIntrapartum careMaternity practiceMaternity researchSalutogenesisSalutogenic

Identifiers

PMID28420339
PMCPMC5395745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.